Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-16
SUNDAY. ....".OCTOBER 16, 1887.
Reconsider.

We regret to find the Petersburg m
dcx-Appcd unfolding Judge BOND in
what so many of the ablest lawyers in
Virginia have pronounced an act of
usurpation. 1t ought at least TO give
the State the benefit of the doubt
The Charleston NcCS and Courier
having said that if Judge BOND should
be sustained, then il were almost vain for
the State to enact laws, for State gov
ornment would have become q farce,
our Petersburg contemporary com
ments as follows:
"That depends on circumstances. II
would be vain for them to enact laws
contrary to the Constitution of the
United States But as long as they
complied with the law and paid their
debts they could keep right on enacting
laws free from intimidation or inter
ference.
BY no means. 1t would make not
the least difference in the world whether
they enacted laws contrary TO the Con-
stitution of the United States or not
If BOND decided that law plainly
constitutional was unconstitutional. the
State officers would 10y him be enjoined
from enforcing it. L, e Mdcr-Appcai
seems TO assume that BONDS judgment
is infallible, and that whenever he pro-
nounces law unconstitutional it is
unconstitutional. But. surely it does
not hold that opinion.
On another point the Indcr-Appcal
says:
1.-The clamor raised over the incarce-
ration Of Attoney-General Ayers and
MIR Scott for refusing obedience to the
mandates OF the United States Circuit
Court must impress the calm observer
as curious, If not absurd, when it Is re-
membered that the proceedings are the
result of deliberate purpose adopted
by the law officers of the State as the
most CxpCdient means of bringing the
matter before the Supreme Court for
settlement
Why, "the clamor" is "raised" be- |
cause Judge BOND wrongfully rendered
it necessary for the States officers to
accept incarceration as preferable to
submission to an unrighteous judgment.
This deliberate purpose would never
have been formed had not BoND com
PEELED the State officers to choose be-
tween those two evils. If ever "clamor"
was justifable il was in the cases un-
der consideration. 1T is not "cUrious
nor "absuId in any degree 1t Is the |
natural cons, quence Of an unjust |
Judges determination to humiliate the |
State Of Virginia.
Again: The hdcr-1ppcd speaks Of |
the Ohio case on which We commenced |
yesterday as parallel to the Virginia
contempt cases and adds:
"Chiof-Justico Marshall himself, as far
hack as 1924, delivered the opinion OF
the Supreme Court sustaining the view |
that IN general an injunction will not |
Le allowed, nor a decree rendered |
against an agent where the principal is
not made party 10 the SUIT. But II
the principal be not himself subject to
the jurisdiction (as in the case of Il
sovereign State) tie rate may b. dis
pensed ,oith.' To our mind there does
not seem room for an intelligent doubt
that the above is precedent for the
Virginia cases, and surelyno one doubts
The alb lily, the patriotism, or the purity
of Judge Marshall.
We beg our Petersburg contempt
rary TO look at the facts. The bunch
ing of cases to gain jurisdiction and
the violation of the United States sta
tute Chen in force forbidding Federal
courts TO grant injunctions to stay pro-
ceedings in the State courts were not
done in the Ohio case. But there
was a reason for entertaining the Ohio
case which does not appear in the Vir-
cinia cases. Read the eleventh amend
ment:
"The judicial power OF the United
States shall not be construed TO extend
TO any suit in law or equity commenced
or prosecuted against one OF the United
States 10y citizens Of another State, or
by citizens or subjects Of any foreign
State"
The suit in the Ohio case was
brought by q corporation created by
the United States That corporation
WAS either a citizen Of Ohio and so did
not come within the terms Of the
eleventh amendment, or else was not
citizen OF OHIO but citizen OF the
United Stat $, and 50 did not come
within the terms OF that amendment. 1t
will be seen that the eleventh amend
ment only prohibits suits by citizens of
.'anofhcr" or Of "a foreign State. "
But it may DO added that the United
States Bank was an agent of the Fed
eral Government, and the Federal
Court thus gained jurisdiction, or US
lawyer recently wrote to us;
"1his was affirmed in 8 Wheat, 73S,
which held that the act incorporating
Tie bank Omitted States gives the cir
\ cult courts jurisdiction of suits by and
as. the bank. "
y BONDS case aud Chief-Justice MAR
STALLS are not the same by any means.
They are not even similar. At first we
were inclined to the opinion that they
were similar, but further investigation
has caused US 10 abandon that opinion.
------------------